It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by CropCircleQueen
I'd like to add to the debate about details, many of which haven't even been mentioned -- like stalks on a few formations bent at right angles, way above ground level. But, I digress.
First, have a look at this:
Why Real Crop Circles Can't Be Hoaxed:
I think there's some question about the magnetic balls, where that report came into question after I did this and I don't have the password to change it.
Of all the evidence of preternatural activity associated with crop formations, the most intriguing was a deposit that became known as the H-Glaze. In 1993, two crop circle researchers, Peter Sørensen and Busty Taylor, noticed a distinctive area in a recently harvested field......they noticed that there was a brown deposit on both the ground and on the flattened remains of the crop......The researchers collected samples and it was quickly noticed that the deposit responded to a magnetic field - an observation that led to it being given the name H-glaze. Some samples were sent to Levengood in America who later published a report1.
We thank Peter Sorensen for his well documented field sampling and obser-
vations, and Linda Moulton Howe for coordinating the sample collections.
In Cherhill, England, the meteoric dust was confined to separate smaller
swirls within the larger swirls. Previous discussion on possible causes of crop
circles has centered on a hypothetical plasma vortex comprised of tightly
swirling ions of the same diameter as the flattened, swirled area of the field
(Meaden, 1991). Meteor trails are so highly ionized that they can be detected
by radar (DeAngelis, 1988) and used to enhance radio communications. The
structure of these ionized trails is still not well understood, but known to be
turbulent (Gibbs, 1983). Plasma processes are commonly seen in the ionos-
phere within the aurora, many of which are spiral.
I first became aware of this case in 1999 and, discovering that a few samples remained in the possession of its discoverers, requested that they should be made available for further scientific testing. Taylor supplied me with one small fragment but Sørensen kindly gave me all of the few remaining samples in his possession. I examined these together with one that I borrowed from Nick Riley (the second sample).
In 1994, Rob Irving and John Lundberg collaborated during the 'Fe3 Project' to mount a group exhibition in the Agency Gallery, London. One exhibit was a plastic bottle containing what was claimed to be material used to create the H-Glaze. Recently, I managed to obtained a sample of this material for investigation.
These beads appeared to be identical to those observed in the H-Glaze by both myself and Levengood. The similarity between this powder and the H-Glaze was striking and, from this initial and purely visual assessment, this material appears to be identical to that found in the 1993 deposit.
The most convincing evidence for heat being involved in the creation of the H-Glaze was the presence of rounded beads of iron. It was my initial assessment that they must have formed into rounded shapes by surface tension when in the liquid phase and this is still true. It was this unusual characteristic of the powder that had added significantly to the credibility of the H-Glaze. If the powder had been produced by, say, grinding or filing, as had been suggested, then the mundane origins of the H-Glaze would have been obvious from the start.
The powder in Rob Irving's possession is a very specialised product. It is not readily obtainable. Where could such material have come from and how did it find its way into the field at Yatesbury?
There are several processes whereby iron can be reduced in this way. However, there are only a few that can produce iron with the requisite purity.
One possibility is gas atomization which is used commercially to produce the largest tonnage of metal powders.
On Berk's original label was typed the name and address of the original purchaser of this powder: Clarendon Laboratory, Parks Road, Oxford. This is part of Oxford University.
[In the early 90's, crop circle researchers were claiming that they could use magnetic anomalies to verify the authenticity of formations. Rob Irving stated that his motive for laying this deposit was to test these claims and Jim Schnabel, who was then at Oxford University, had sent him this iron dust in the belief that it would be suitable for this purpose. Paradoxically, it was not the magnetic properties of the deposit that first attracted investigators but its appearance and the most inexplicable aspect, at least for me, was not the presence of the iron but rather its source.
It is curious that the plasma vortex hypothesis, which was largely discredited and abandoned by its creator in the early 90s, should still find favour with BLT. Likewise, it is hard to understand the fascination with meteoric dust as a litmus test for the authenticity of crop circles. If the scientific community, or anyone with reasonable acuity, is to be persuaded that these demonstrably flawed and speculative theories can, in any way, explain the appearance of crop circles or ferrous deposits, then it will take a more credible argument than that proffered by W.C. Levengood and John A. Burke.
Did Albert rely only his feelings to test and describe the true nature of things?
"Albert Einstein once remarked that for the human there is no more powerful feeling than that of the 'mysterious.'
Originally posted by Software_Pyrate
Originally posted by atlasastro
For example, lets compare another supernatural mystery within contemporary culture. The mystery surrounding Jesus Christ....
Bad form.....No need to bring Jesus Christ in to this
However, I Have read the Original thoroughly. And being open-minded to both sides. I believe I can find why there paper was such heavily scrutinized, and thus pulled.(forgive me if this is in the Mufon Journal_internet acting up).
It does state that the finding are inaccurate. That is why they withdrew the paper.
2 big loose ends so to speak,
Control had two specific elements that were in the samples. This however, does not mean there findings are inaccurate at all,has been addressed and they offer suggestions..
Assuming this is plausible, how do we explain the presence of the gold-194 in the control? Consider the fact that the mercury-194 has a half-life of 520 years. If the field had had crop circles in earlier years, the mercury-194 could have been spread around the field by wind, erosion, and plowing.
More testing needs to be done, because their tests are useless. Which was why they withdrew them. In 1994. since then they have done nothing.
They also offer more radical scenarios, this to me, is most likely. They go on to say that more TESTING NEEDS TO BE DONE.
They withdrew the study because of the raw data.
In addition, our interpretation of the data from the gamma spectrometer needs to be confirmed by similar findings from independent laboratories. Spectroscopic data is extremely complex, and its interpretation is inevitably a matter of judgment. But our interpretation of the data has convinced several of our associates in Oak Ridge. We believe it will stand; and we would be glad to show the raw data to those who wish to examine it for themselves.
Yes, Questions have been raised but I do not think they have been put to rest....not quite yet.
The thing I take most from this paper(that has been retracted) is that
MORE TESTING NEEDS TO BE DONE to either confirm or deny there findings...
Its the fact that the isotopes "Have been detected" that needs to be discussed further and not "where" they were detected ( that is used for "tearing down" )for there to be more validity to their argument.
The authors tell me what the research deserves.
I enjoy your posts atlasastro...but I think their research deserves more than what yer giving it.
The errors where found by the authors after they were alerted to the fact that they needed to look at the raw data.
Yes, After Mainstream media throw every possible error into the pot....a lot of field data can be considered erroneous in most experiments.
I believe if they were to know of the scrutiny that lied ahead, they would've covered there asses a little better, and tried to account for less variables. IMHO.
Again, you seem to miss the point of the study. The point was to support a claim that the isotopes were rare.
Whats important is...rare isotopes were detected.
Yes it does.
The Bottom line is,
MORE RESEARCH NEEDS TO BE DONE.
If one takes a single bucket of rock from a mine and finds gold in it, one is well justified in doing further digging.
Crop circles are also shown to be aligned with some of
England's principal motorways. These findings cast doubt on paranormal theories
explaining crop circles as the result of natural forces such as plasma vortices, indicating
instead that some form of intelligence (human or otherwise) is the principal agent.
Quite clearly, the view
that human agency is the principal cause and that crop circles are a form of sacred landscape artistry
is an ontological claim that is based on a mundane perspective of reality, even though such an
explanation might fully accord with the empirical evidence.
Originally posted by Julie Washington
reply to post by atlasastro
I'm not sure why you spend so much energy trying to debunk all the evidence.
As a read through your above post, no where do I get any scientific proof for or against.
There are flaws in all of the studies presented as evidence.
Sure there are flaws in some of the studies. And there are those that can find any way to discredit someone else's research.
But with all the overwhelming consistant stories from so many researchers and observers around the world something extra ordinary is going on.
It just shows that more research is needed.
Originally posted by Julie Washington
More research for your disection. This research article was done by Russian researchers Natalya Solodovnik & Anatoly Borisovich Solodovnik.
It is a long and in depth study of elongated nodes and causes. Effects of environment, air, wind, soil and rock samples.
This researcher lables genuine (unexplained) CC's as "miraculous" and others as "man made".
1. In the mature plants, the outer shell of the stem nodes may have sufficient strength to withstand without changing the shape and size of the instantaneous increase in pressure differential between the intracellular content (turgor) and external pressure on the cell walls stem node.
In this case, the only source of irreversible shift stalk is the effect of a gust of wind, propagating along the trajectories of micro, which bends the stem to the first node (permanent bend or kink).
If you have any miraculous image of such curved with a break in the first node of plants, flattened stems in figure will not have second, third, fourth and fifth nodes of elongation and irreversible bends nodes swelling of nodes and the holes in the shells of the destruction of sites of the plant.
According to the above-described conditional differences such miraculous drawing will rasssmatrivatsya as handmade.
Consequently, the application of the above-described conditional differences may overstate the number of man-made drawings "crop circles" and underestimates number of miraculous images "crop circles".
And it does reference the BTL research inconsistancies and other skeptical opinions.
Edit to add link:
MECHANISM Stem lodging of plants and Miraculous "crop circles"
This is in Russian - use the Google translator for easy reading.
[edit on 2-6-2010 by Julie Washington]
Originally posted by atlasastro
reply to post by Software_Pyrate
Don't take it personally S_P.
This has nothing to do with you, and everything to do with my passion for this topic on ATS.
I think it is obvious that I am very familiar with the topic and that I seriously consider with depth, all the material posted by other members. Would you expect less S_P?
What I think is most significant, while we are on the subject of how much time we spend on posts and what have you, is that none of you have explained why my concerns regarding the "evidence" you present are incorrect, unfair or unwarranted.
Why is that?
Currently, the facts are that the material supplied by many posters in relation to scientific research is rather lacking in substance and quality, in which case I have denied the ignorance found within.
I expect that I will continue to behave in this manner despite who posts what and not in spite of who posts what.
Lets not forget that as much as I am a skeptic of claims and evidence, and that people may view this as "debunking". Those that accept the "claims" of "anomalies" and "mysterious" origins are themselves skeptical of mundane explanations and they are attempting to debunk the claims of those that explain this phenomena and anomalies with these mundane explanations.
Because, I think it is safe to say that BLT show no alternative explanation. Not only is it safe for me to say that, BLT specifically state that they speculate and merely suggest, as does Haselhoff.
Again, the two authors of the failed Isotope study also make suggestions.
I don't want suggestions.
I am here because the OP claimed he had evidence.
S_P, have you considered the problem I mention concerning the fact that all the images of 'bent" or "elongated" or "blown" crop nodes only ever show one node on the stem?
I can explain this with natural causes of photo and gravitropism.
How do you explain these "isolated nodes" on individual plants considering you have linked "studies" claiming electromagnetic or other(isotopes) elements?
Why are there no images of multiple "bent', "elongated" or "blown" nodes?
You really need to over come this problem is you are going to subscribe to any of these mysterious "energy" sources.
Thousands of circles have been made. You guys have got a hand full of tests over 10 years old, and these tests are seriously flawed, criticized by those within the CC community(Haselhoff is clear on the unscientific nature and the unsound methods of BLT) or have been withdrawn all together.
No wonder you need to have an "open mind" about the topic, because you have nothing to really base an informed opinion on. You merely have to be open to suggestion and assumptions and "witness testimony". etc.
Being open minded to possibility is one thing, basing a belief on what might be possible is another thing altogether.